TaRapedia talk:Formatting/Article names
Category names? Singular vs. Plural :The following discussion has been moved here from TaRapedia talk:Community Portal Hi, according to TaRapedia:Formatting/Article_names#Categories we should use singular category names. The reason stated for this is about technical issues. We all live in 21st century and is nonsense to make compromises with computers. Computers are here to help us and serve us not to make our lives harder. I'm a programmer so I know, that making user-friendly interfaces is harder, but it is definitelly worth it. * Technical aspect: ** It's all just about changing some templates - I volunteer for this task * People's intuition: ** AFAIK (English is not my native language) name of Category:All skill is not gramaticaly correct ** Why having all the All''s in the category names? Just using single plural words should suffice ** All other wikis are using plurals for category names and it is now a custom practice * Categorization: ** I have a categorization proposal at my user page - what do you think about it? In my oppinion present category system is a mess :( → Asdef 12:15, 26 July 2007 (EDT) I agree with Asdef, i was watching the stuff he was putting up on his user page and it made A LOT more sense. I haven't been fuckin around with the catagories too much (haven't been able to, no idea what to do), but looking at the pages, i hate looking at the bottom and seeing Catagory:All Weapon instead of Catagory:All Weapons *i have a BA in English (don't judge by my spelling =p) and these types of things drive me up the wall! @Asdef, don't use ''All''s, make the word after ''All plural (ie: All weapons, All Classes, etc) *Also, why don't we have all the editing buttons that wikipedia has? i don't remeber how to indent! =p **Why doesn't my name automatically link! --chillinvillain 13:27, 26 July 2007 (EDT) :The following post has been copied here from Category talk:All skills :I'm in a dilemma here. On one hand I want categories to be in singular, which makes automatic categorization a lot easier. That's what I suggested this as a rule in TaRapedia:Formatting/Article names#Categories. But I can't think of a good name for the "all" categories. "All skill" is obviously wrong grammar. Should we call the category "Any skill" instead? Please note that this is a general decission that will affect all "All/Any" categories throughout the wiki. --TETRIS L 15:40, 26 July 2007 (EDT) ::Let me explain about the technical problem. Asdef just edited Template:Skill and changed ::"Category: All skill" into "[[Category: All skill's']]". ::That one was a no-brainer. The next line is typical for the cases that cause the problems: ::"skill}}}}}" ::What to do with this? The user specifies a type and the template puts the article into "All ". There is no way for the template to know the correct plural of the type. In most cases you can form the plural by simply adding an "s" at the end, but not in all cases. --TETRIS L 16:01, 26 July 2007 (EDT) ::: I've already started workingon the new Template:Skill at User:Asdef/Template:Skill. There are just 2 types (Abilities and Trainings), so I added 2 #IFs. For more types we can use #SWITCH. In other categories I proposed there isn't any pluralism needed (I don't have all the categories worked out yet). For pluralising Classes we can use special template... We don't need to be able to pluralize all the English words - just few of them. :::I was thinking about not using the All words at all. Just use Category:Skills instead of Category:All skills. This is just matter of taste. Personally I don't like having many categories named All ''anything. On the other side having all the base categories begin with '''All', it would be easier to find them in category listings. :::Question (vote?): What is your prefference for category names? :::*Category:All skill - bad grammar; ?technicaly easier? :::*Category:All skills - all base categories at the begining of category listings; the All'' word is IMHO unnecessary clutter :::*Category:Skills - my favorite; familiar style from other wikis; base categories are harder to find (Category:Skills is between Category:Abilities and Category:Trainings which are both descendad of the first) ::: → Asdef 16:23, 26 July 2007 (EDT) ::::Yes, automatic categorization with templates in plural is possible, but it requires quite a bit of work and coding to cover all relevant cases. I've gone through this before on GuildWiki, and after lots of discussion we ended up doing all the categorization manually, which is a horrible solution IMHO, because by simply switching to singular categories it can all be solved so easily. ::::As for getting rid of the "all/any" category altogether, I explained about my reasons before, over here. ::::I can understand that "All skill" causes an uproar, because it is wrong grammar. But if this is the sole reason to switch to plural categories, then I'd rather rename this catgeory to "Any skill". That's grammatically correct, isn't it? --TETRIS L 16:33, 26 July 2007 (EDT) :::::Yeah "Any Skill" is correct grammar. Spins a bit strange syntactically (like why would you say "I am putting all the skills in 'any skill'" but again, its just a taste thing. Other than that, i don't have a lot of complaints, i'll let you two people who actually know a lot of wiki go at it. Most the stuff I do ends up using hack and slash from stuff people like Tetris L & Asdef. :::::I would like to also ask, I made the Template:Tool and I was hoping one of you guys could double check the code on it. I wanted to have the "additional requirements" in there, but couldn't figure out how to have it auto link the addition(s), the multiples being the problem, couldn't find a way to code it to obey name breaks when it saw a comma. (see AFS Standard Healing Disc for example)--chillinvillain16:59, 26 July 2007 (EDT) ::::::If "I am putting all the skills in 'any skill'" sounds strange, simply '''think singular when it comes to categories. To me, "I am putting any skill in 'all skills'" is just as strange. :p ;) ::::::As for Template:Tool, let's discuss that in Template talk:Tool. On this wiki, things have a strong tendency to be discussed on the "wrong" (off-topic) talk pages, which makes it very hard to find relevant discussions later. --TETRIS L 17:17, 26 July 2007 (EDT) :::::I'm replying to the Category talk:All Logos symbol here, because the discussion is about all categories - not just Logos or Skills. I must apologize for not understanding your arrangement and the MediaWiki problem - You want to have main category without individual items and have special All subcategory with all items. I updated my category proposal to reflect this. Although using the All approach is having problems with some category types, where there are just a few articles - like classes. The WoWwiki http://www.wowwiki.com has Category:Creatures http://www.wowwiki.com/Category:Creatures with all articles about creatures and some subcategories. Paging in this category doesn't work (don't know the version of MediaWiki used or if it is fixed in newer versions). → Asdef 12:29, 27 July 2007 (EDT) ::::::Why not just use only singular, i.e. --Category:Skill Bal 19:27, 24 August 2007 (EDT) * (Imper1um 00:11, 25 August 2007 (EDT)) Here's how I feel: In the case of if it is part of the word, i.e. Logos, it should be Spelled with the ending 's'. However, the Singular Name of the word should be used whenever possible. Now, as for Categories, I do agree that the Plural forms should be used. This is the exception, since it's Categorizing Multiple Subjects. Things like All Skills, All Weapons, etc should be used for Categories so that they are not confusing in the long run. All in favor of this? :: I would vote for not using the word "all", because "Category:All Skills" and "Category:Skills" are essentially equivalent (the fact that it is a category implies the word 'all'), and "Skills" is briefer. Also, "Category:Skills" can easily point to the "Skills" page from it's own description. ::So, my vote is 'nay'. --Bal 02:59, 25 August 2007 (EDT) ::* (Imper1um 01:49, 26 August 2007 (EDT)) Well, then how about just using Plural for Category minus All? :::Obviously, I vote yes for the "Plural Minus All" movement. --Bal 06:43, 26 August 2007 (EDT) ::::o.o I'm trashing all the "all" cats and making them into plurals where logical. Starting cats with All is horrible for organizational sake if nothing else ^^;; Over the next week I'll be reworking a number of things, if I break anything, or something I do seems illogical, let me know.. Also, while great in they're layout and function, a lot of the templates that pages are using now are over using categories to an insane amount.. o_o an article should be placed in the category it fits in in the lowest portion of a category chain, not every single possible section of said category chain. I can't believe it, but someone has invented wiki spaghetti code here, and they left out the meat sauce >Category:Skills.) I haven't read the whole thread, but I did just read Sleepykitty's post, and I agree 100%. --TonyV 10:15, 26 August 2007 (EDT) * OK, just realize that Wikipedia does the exact same thing: A City is on a Continent which is on the Earth. The usage of having an expanded Category listing is very organized, as it puts the reference all the way back. (Wikipedia:Category:Florida), until we get something that Wikipedia uses for expanded category listing. Once that is done, we can pull back the Category listings. I will look up the MediaWiki how-to for it and see how we can aquire that useful tool. (Imper1um 11:44, 26 August 2007 (EDT)) ** Just found it: We NEED this. (http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CategoryTree). Tony, mind if you put it up? (Imper1um 11:46, 26 August 2007 (EDT)) Categories for cross referencing? I was wondering how useful it would be to use categories for cross referencing? For example, if a place has a soldier class trainer, giving it a Category:Locations with Soldier Trainer or something similar? Thus the Soldier class page can do "See: Category:Locations with Soldier Trainer" in order to direct users to locations where they might find a trainer. This alleviates having to add each of these locations to the soldier page, and still provide a quick way to find them from the soldier page. I realize the example of soldier is a trivial example, but for tier 4 classes (and later, if they are created) and other types of objects (logos, mobs), this might be very useful. --Bal 19:49, 24 August 2007 (EDT) * (Imper1um 00:01, 25 August 2007 (EDT)) No location is too trivial, although it seems like a good idea. Here's what I will do: :: Trainer= TRAINER TYPE ::* Trainer Type = Class of Trainer. This will put it into the Category: Trainer of TRAINER TYPE This will automize the process of putting it in. * (Imper1um 00:06, 25 August 2007 (EDT)) OK, it's put into Template:NPC. Just apply the Trainer Tag to the NPC Template and the template will take over from there. ::Ok, but what about for pages like Wilderness that give a list of trainers available. Note that not all trainers are available at these locations. Or by 'trivial' did you mean that it is unimportant? Perhaps I've misunderstood. --Bal 03:01, 25 August 2007 (EDT) ::Also, we currently have something similar Category:Logos in Wilderness. --Bal 05:58, 25 August 2007 (EDT) Categories for keeping track of verification? *I've been adding comment tags into all the Logos that I've edited with text "verified yyyy-mm-dd". I was thinking that maybe having a group of categories based on patch numbers might be useful for keeping track of this. For example, there'd be Patch 0.20.2.0 page, Category:Patch 0.20.2.0, Category:Verified in Patch 0.20.2.0, and Category:UnVerified in Current Patch. All old "Category:Verified in Patch #.#.#.#" can belong to Category:UnVerified in Current Patch, while the current "Category:Verified in Path #.#.#.#" would not. All anyone would need to do is go to that category to see things that need verifying post patch. *We probably already want to have individual pages for each patch, which would include any storyline, content info, patch notes, known issues, etc. This sort of just extends that to include a lot more information. *There is the possibility that this would be a very large thing to keep current after each patch. I think overall though, it would be useful for keeping track of up-to-date and old information. --Bal 06:11, 25 August 2007 (EDT) :* (Imper1um 01:51, 26 August 2007 (EDT)) The best bet is to not worry about this, since we would have to auto hit EVERY article in the game if this occured. Just tag it with Template:Status/Old when you think it's old due to the last patch. Otherwise, our work is extended ten-fold. Someone Stop Sleepykitty! Omg someone stop Sleepykitty, and revert all of their changes or something...Moving all of the logos into (PAGENAME) (Logos) has just f'ed up all of the pages. Now I gota edit the Logos Formatting with a new Debug Category... Another day in the life of someone trying to keep it standardized. (Imper1um 01:54, 26 August 2007 (EDT)) :o.o sorry, just making them stick to one standard instead of 3, and it would have been done anyway as more of them started to conflict name wise.. ^^;; some of the logos names.. err.. things like damage.. heal... planet.. they're just going to cause conflicts further down the road if they weren't altered to specify what they do. =^^= thanks for fixing any bugs that I might have inadvertently caused, a few alterations to the templates are definitely going to be needed soon. --Sleepy Kitty 03:33, 26 August 2007 (EDT) ::I prefer the '(PAGENAME) (Logos)' version, but that's just because it's formal and would be a strict naming scheme (all logos would have the postfix "(Logos)", as opposed to now, where some do and some do not). It doesn't seem to be in "wiki" style though. I updated Template:Logos to function with both the current hierarchy of logos locations and SleepyKitty's version as well. At this point, I feel like SleepyKitty's method is more readable as far as naming goes, but I'm not sure if I'm satisfied with the hierarchy. For example, on the Category:Logos by location only Category:Foreas Logos is listed. I like how the old system showed all planets, continents, zones, and instances. On the other hand, as the game gets more planets, etc it would become very cluttered, while SleepyKitty's version would be much easier to navigate. So, as I've just argued myself into approving of SleepyKitty's system, I vote that we move towards that system, at least for Logos locations. Also, I like how it's briefer than Asdef's version, yet still gets across the meaning. I guess I'm of the opinion that the majority of category names don't need words like 'all', 'by', 'on', 'in', etc. --Bal 06:39, 26 August 2007 (EDT) :::^^ my wiki experience comes from Paragonwiki.com, I'm in charge and made most of the base items articles and categories over there. We recently had a bit of a category war over recipes as well.. @.@ in the long run, all we can hope to do is choose a system that is hopefully organized enough and adaptable enough to be used a year or two down the road. o_o course, the game could go Auto Assault on us and make it all pointless.. >.> course, AA's makers are now doing the Lego MMO so.. :o.o anyway, I was going to make it (PN} (Logos) instead of (logos) but I kinda didn't pay attention to the caps for the first 10, and then it didn't seem worth it.. Tetris's guide seems to say that he wanted it to be lower caps for () words but.. that seems less formal than you'd expect a pagename or category to be.. Anyway, even admin goof up, so pls exuse mew when I do ^^ --Sleepy Kitty 07:37, 26 August 2007 (EDT) :: I've asked Sleepykitty to try to tame some of the wild west of categories, article titles, etc. that have come about since I spend most of my time creating user accounts for the wiki instead of actually working on the wiki these days. :-( Anyway, Sleepy does indeed have a ton of experience with the Paragon Wiki, and we really need this stuff standardized now, while the wiki is still relatively new, instead of letting it grow as organically as it has. :: Personally, I'm fine with all of what Sleepy's done so far, including the renaming logos articles. If there has been a mistake such as miscapitalization, that's a non-issue; we all make typos, and you're welcome to correct it. However, as these standards get established (and sooner or later, they will get established), please do try to follow them. If anyone has an issue with the standards, let me know, and I'll address it. If something gets broken in the course of establishing the standards, let us know what needs to be done to fix it, and we'll help. :: --TonyV 10:34, 26 August 2007 (EDT) ::: Cool. Well, one thing we really need to work on is the Standards (Tarapedia:Formatting). I'm going to try to write some of the pages to get them started, but we'll need to work together to get this up. This thing actually needs to be done Priority 1 so we aren't stepping on the toes of others...Unless ur a masochist and like that...or something. :p (Imper1um 11:48, 26 August 2007 (EDT)) Category formating guide - needs updating! Hi, in July there was discussion about category naming. This wiki has already moved from incorrect Category:All skill to much better and on other wikis standardized Category:Skills style. We just need to finish this transition and write up the new formating guide about Category naming. The current unwritten rules are: # To use plural words in category names. I fully agree with that. # To use sentence capitalization (first word capitalized, all other capitalized only when proper names). I agree with that as well. # some other rules and/or special cases? I hope not - let's keep it as simple as possible There are some Categories that needs to be discussed and renamed to adhere to rules we'll create: * Category:Signature Ability, Category:Signature Abilities, Category:Signature abilities, ... * Category:Tier 1 Classes, Category:Tier 1 classes, ... * Category:Abilities by Class and Category:Abilities by class (Even it's against the sentence naming rule I prefer the first one) * Category:Recruit Class Abilities, Category:Recruit class abilities, Category:Recruit abilities, Category:Abilities usable by recruit, ... * Category:Power Logos Abilities, Category:Power Logos abilities, Category:Abilities using Power Logos, ... * Category:Alia Das Missions, Category:Alia Das missions, Category:Missions available in Alia Das, ... * Category:Foreas Logos, Category:Logos on Foreas, ... * Category:Abbreviation, Category:Abbreviations, ... * Category:Blade, Category:Blades, Category:Blade weapons, ... * Category:Pistol, Category:Pistols, Category:Pistol weapons, ... ??? * Category:Caves of Donn, Category:Caves of Donn articles, Category:Articles about Caves of Donn, ... * Category:Dye, Category:Dyes, ... * ... My preference are the bold category names → Zarevak 06:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC) : Agreed on plural and caplitalization, but we might have to consider capitalizing words that are capitalized in a game context, but wouldn't normally be, e.g. Recruit. I'm not entirely convinced either way yet. : Since I care quite a bit about category organization and not just naming, I ended up with way too much text to put here. See User:Dashiva/Categories for the whole thing. While splitting into and (can later be moved to replace Skill), I used the category scheme in the Characters section of my proposal. It sorts by class, by tier and overall on one axis, and skill, ability, skill+ability on another. In addition it sorts signature abilities as well as grouping skills by weapon, armor or crafting. I think it's mostly the same structure we have now. One thing I know is changed is that they do not categorize by logos. There are so few abilities compared to logos, and so many logos with no abilities, and the use case for finding other abilities using a given logos is weak enough to be solved by checking the logos page. In my opinion, of course. I haven't created the categories or anything like that since it's not something we've agreed on, so bring on the comments. - Dashiva 03:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC) : I see the first comment already arrived. I don't know why I decided to go with "All x", I see in retrospect it would just lead to some empty container categories. No objections to changing those. - Dashiva 04:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC) : I do, however, feel somewhat uneasy with "Skills and Abilities" instead of "Skills and abilities". - Dashiva 04:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC) :: was writing response in the same time as you... :: Aha! That's the reason for All skills category (sorry for changing the templates, I'm bit annoyed by all the All XXX categories). But do we need one? All the skills could reside in the master Skills category and to go around paging of subcategory names with article names, we can use ''sortkey with space at the beginning'' workaround. :: BTW: on page: User:TABULA-TABULA-Asdef there is some old category proposal as well. - There are two versions for skill categorization, first very similar to yours. :: New Comment: "Skills and Abilities" vs "Skills and abilities" - I've used an existing category, could be changed without any objections ;-) :: → Zarevak 04:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC) :: Just a bit on naming convention: I'm not an English native speaker, but I understand Skill being both Training and Ability. So I suggest using category: Skills with two subcategories Trainings and Abilities - this would coincide with ingame naming and also solve the Skills and abilities problem ;-) :: → Zarevak 04:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC) ::: That was in my initial proposal, then I remembered that the UI says Skills/Abilities for that window, suggesting abilities are not skills. I personally would prefer to use skill = ability + training, but most important is that we don't confuse the average reader. I suppose asking some people in the game might be in order. - Dashiva 04:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC) Skill names In the game files skill names includes Training/Ability/Signature Ability/Engeneering keyword before the name. What naming should we use? * Training: Motor Assist Body Armor vs. Motor Assist Body Armor * Engineering: Photonics vs. Engineering:Photonics vs. Photonics * Signature Ability: Explosive Wave vs. Explosive Wave * 'Ability: Lightning vs. Lightning (ability) vs. Lightning → Zarevak 05:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC) : Ok, it got little more complicated as official name for Viral Conversion (in 1.3.2.1) doesn't include the '''Ability: ' prefix :( : I'm thinking about moving the Engineering articles to versions without the 'Engineering: ' prefix to comply with other skills naming and thus unwritten skill naming policy: :* Engineering:Chemistry to Chemistry :* Engineering:Photonics to Photonics :* Engineering:Genetics to Genetics :* Engineering:Thermodynamics to Thermodynamics : → Zarevak 02:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC) edit: Zarevak 11:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC) :: I second removing the prefix, but we can of course keep redirects in place. - Dashiva 10:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)